women in engineering 2011

8/3/2019 Women in Engineering 2011

1/64

Nadya A. Fouad, Ph.D

Romila Singh, Ph.D

University o Wisconsin-Milwaukee

WHY WOMEN LEAVE ENGINEERING


2/64

There is little to no RESPECT or women in male-dominated elds.

Still getting asked i I can handle being in a mostly male work environmentin interviews in 2009 - Ive been an engineer or 9 years, obviously I can.I know when Im asked that question, I HAVE NO CHANCE AT THE JOB. It

is nice they brought me in or equal opportunity survey points but dontwaste my time i you dont take emales seriously.

Caucasian Industrial Engineering graduate

My current workplace is veryWOMAN ENGINEER FRIENDLY.Women get promoted and paid

at the same rate as men.

I have to getOUTSIDE OF THE CUBICLE.

My work or many years at a USnational laboratory has providedboth the fexibility and scientic/educational environment I need.

In turn I give my proessional best

while at work. It is aWIN-WIN.

Being a blonde, blue-eyed emale

DOESNT HELP when interviewing ina manuacturing/plant setting.

The lack o women in general, and the lacko women mentors makes it [engineering] aLONELYeld or women to want to stay in.


3/64

3

TABLE OF

CONTENTS5 Executive Summary

11 Chapter 1: Introduction

15 Chapter 2: Participants Profle and Study Procedures

17 Chapter 3: Women Who Never Entered the Field o Engineering ater

Earning Their Undergraduate Degree in Engineering

23 Chapter 4: Women Engineers Who Let the Engineering Field Over Five

Years Ago

29 Chapter 5: Current and Former Women Engineers: Who Are They and

What Are They Doing?

35 Chapter 6: Women Currently Working in Engineering: How are They

Faring in their Jobs and Careers?

41 Chapter 7: Women Currently Working in Engineering: How are They

Managing Their Multiple Lie Roles?

47 Chapter 8: Women Currently Working in Engineering: How Strong is

Their Bond to the Engineering Proession and to Their Organization?

51 Chapter 9: What Explains Women Engineers Desire to Leave theCompany and the Proession?

57 Chapter 10: Summary & Recommendations

62 References


4/64

A study o this scope is not possible without the help and cooperation o many individuals.

The study was conducted at the University o Wisconsin-Milwaukee and unded with a

grant by the National Science Foundation.

We would irst like to acknowledge and thank the many women

engineers who so generously volunteered their time to participate

in this study. They did so with enthusiasm and commitment, oten

contributing many suggestions, ideas, and comments to help us

gain a better understanding o their decisions to stay in, or leave, an

engineering career. We couldnt have done it without them!

We thank the members o our team who were doctoral students in counseling psychology:

Jane Liu, Michelle Parisot, Catia Figuereido, and Melissa Rico and, in particular, Mary

Fitzpatrick, a ormer engineer who provided us with invaluable insights and assistance

as we developed the study.

We thank all o the partner universities or their invaluable cooperation and support.

We were remarkably ortunate to work with a number o Deans, Associate Deans, and

WIE Program Directors rom 30 partner universities who dedicated many sta hours and

resources to provide us with mechanisms to reach out to their alumnae.

We thank the members o the UWM-ENTECH team who helped to create our website and

the database, and continued to help problem solve the inevitable bugs and glitches.

We thank Gina Johnson, Communications Specialist at UWM, or her creative

conceptualization and design o all media associated with this project.

We thank Alonzo Thurman, Dean o Education at UWM, and Kanti Prasad, ormer Dean

o Lubar School o Business at UWM, or their additional nancial support o the project.

We thank Patricia Arredondo, Associate Vice Chancellor o Academic Aairs, and Sammis

White, Associate Dean, School o Continuing Education, at the UWM Center or the Study

o the Workplace, or their support and encouragement.

We thank the media relations team at UWM, particularly Tom Luljak, Vice-Chancellor,

University Communications and Media Relations, Laura Glawe, Director, University

Communications and Media Relations, and Laura Hunt, Senior University Relations

Specialist, or their assistance with the project.

Finally, we thank our amilies who gave us advice, eedback, and support, especially

Dr. A. A. Fouad, who is still disappointed his daughter chose psychology over engineering.

This project was unded by the National Science Foundation (Womens Persistence in

Engineering Careers: Contextual Barriers/Supports; NSF # 0827553). Any opinions, ndings

conclusions, and recommendations, are the authors and do not necessarily refect the

views o the National Science Foundation.

ACKNOW

LEDGEME

NTS


5/64

5

EXECUTIVESUMMARYSTEMMING THE TIDE: PROJECT ON

WOMEN ENGINEERS RETENTIONWomen comprise more than 20% o engineering school graduates, but only 11% o practicing engineers

are women, despite decades o academic, ederal, and employer interventions to address this gender

gap. Project on Women Engineers Retention (POWER) was designed to understand actors related to

women engineers career decisions. Over 3,700 women who had graduated with an engineering degree

responded to our survey and indicated that the workplace climate was a strong actor in their decisions

to not enter engineering ater college or to leave the proession o engineering. Workplace climate also

helped to explain current engineers satisaction and intention to stay in engineering.


6/64

6 WOMEN IN ENGINEERING 2011 REPORT

KEY FINDINGS: Some women let the feld, somenever entered and many are currently engineers:

Those who let: Nearlyhalfsaidtheyleftbecauseofworkingconditions,too

muchtravel,lackofadvancementorlowsalary.

One-in-threewomenleftbecausetheydidnotliketheworkplace

climate,theirbossortheculture.

One-in-fourlefttospendtimewithfamily.

Thosewholeftwerenotdifferentfromcurrentengineersintheir

interests,condenceintheirabilities,orthepositiveoutcomes

theyexpectedfromperformingengineeringrelatedtasks.

Those who didnt enter engineering ater graduation:

Athirdsaiditwasbecauseoftheirperceptionsofengineeringasbeinginexibleortheengineeringworkplacecultureasbeing

non-supportiveofwomen.

Thirtypercentsaidtheydidnotpursueengineeringaftergraduation

becausetheywerenolongerinterestedinengineeringorwere

interestedinanothereld.

Manysaidtheyareusingtheknowledgeandskillsgainedintheir

educationinanumberofotherelds.

Work decisions o women currently working in Engineering: Womensdecisionstostayinengineeringarebestpredictedbya

combinationofpsychologicalfactorsandfactorsrelatedtothe

organizationalclimate. Womensdecisionstostayinengineeringcanbeinuencedby

keysupportivepeopleintheorganization,suchassupervisorsand

co-workers.Currentwomenengineerswhoworkedincompaniesthat

valuedandrecognizedtheircontributionsandinvestedsubstantially

intheirtrainingandprofessionaldevelopment,expressedgreatest

levelsofsatisfactionwiththeirjobsandcareers.

Womenengineerswhoweretreatedinacondescending,patronizing

manner,andwerebelittledandunderminedbytheirsupervisors

andco-workersweremostlikelytowanttoleavetheirorganizations.

Womenwhoconsideredleavingtheircompanieswerealsovery

likelytoconsiderleavingtheeldofengineeringaltogether.


7/64

7EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

STUDY METHODS:

In November 2009, we launched a national longitudinal study, unded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), to

investigate women engineers experiences in technical workplaces. To reach women who earned engineering undergraduate

degrees, we partnered with 30 universities and recruited their emale engineering alumnae through e-mail and postcards.

Women recognized the importance o the study and responded enthusiastically to our survey. In act, women rom an

additional 200 universities have participated ater hearing o the study in the media and through colleagues. As o January

2011, over 3,700 women have completed the survey and more than three quarters have agreed to be re-contacted in uture

waves o the study.

THE PARTICIPANTS

The engineering alumnae who participated in the study consisted o 4 groups: those with an engineering undergraduate

degree who never entered the engineering feld, those who let the feld more than 5 years ago, those who let the engineering feld

less than 5 years ago, and those who are currently working as engineers. We frst report on what we learned rom the frst

two groups o women who are no longer working in engineering. Then, to help understand potential reasons why women let

the feld, we compare current engineers with engineers who let less than 5 years ago on their perceptions o the supports

and barriers in the workplace and their perceptions o managing multiple roles. We only contrasted the current engineers with

those who let less than fve years ago to provide similar time rames or comparison as well as to ensure that recollections

were recent enough to be accurate.


8/64


Women Who Let EngineeringSome alumnae never entered the engineering proession:

Fifteenpercent(N=560)ofourparticipantshadcompleted

therigoroustrainingrequiredtoearnabaccalaureatedegree

inengineeringbutchosenottoentertheeldofengineering.

What did they major in? Thethreemostfrequentlycited

majorswere:IndustrialEngineering,ChemicalEngineering

andMechanicalEngineering.Nearlyhalfofthisgroupof

engineersearnedanadditionaldegree,primarilymasters

degrees,although11%hadearnedanadditionalBSdegree.

Are they working?YES.Althoughtheydidnotenterengineer-

ing,4out-of-5ofthemareworkinginanotherindustry.Two

thirdsofthewomenareworkinginamanagerialorexecutive

position.Themostfrequentlycitedindustriesinwhichthey

workare:InformationTechnology,Education,andGovern-

ment/Non-prot.Aquarterofthewomenwhodidnotenter

theeldreportedthattheywereearninglessthan$50,000,whileanotherquarterreportedearningbetween$51,000and

$100,000.Mostofthisgrouphadaspousewhowasalso

employedfulltime,reectedinthethirdofthemreportinga

familyincomegreaterthan$150,000.

Why did the women not enter an engineering career? The

topvereasonswomenreportedfordecidingnottoenter

engineeringwere:Theywerenotinterestedinengineering,

didntliketheengineeringculture,hadalwaysplannedtogo

intoanothereld,didnotndthecareerexibleenough,

orwantedtostarttheirownbusiness.Thesereasonsdidnot

differsignicantlyacrossdifferentagegroupsoryearsof

graduation.

Some women let an engineering career more than fve

years ago:

One-in-veoftheparticipants(N=795)startedinanengi-

neeringcareerbutlefttheeldmorethanveyearsago.

What did they major in? Similartothewomenengineerswhoneverenteredtheengineeringeld,thetopthreemajors

earnedbythisgroupofwomenengineerswere:Industrial

Engineering,MechanicalEngineering,andChemicalEngi-

neering.Almosthalfhadearnedanadditionaldegree,most

oftenanMSorMBA.

Are they working?YES.Twothirdsarecurrentlyworking,a

thirdofthemareearningover$100,000,and70%ofthese

womenareinmanagementorexecutivelevelpositions.Mor

thantwothirdsreportedafamilyincomeofover$100,000.

Thetopthreeindustriesinwhichthesewomenareworking

inare:Education,Healthcare,andConsulting.

Why did they leave an engineering career?Aquarterofthewomenreportedthattheylefttheeldtospendmoretime

withtheirfamily.Otherwomenreportedthattheylost

interestinengineeringordevelopedinterestinanothereld,

theydidnotliketheengineeringculture,theydidnotlike

engineeringtasks,ortheywerenotofferedanyopportunities

foradvancement.

At my last engineering job women were ed up with the culture:arrogant, infexible, completely money-driven, sometimes unethical,intolerant o dierences in values and priorities. I elt alienated, inspite o spending my whole careerTRYING TO ACT LIKE A MAN.


9/64

9EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Profle o Women Currently Workingin Engineering and Those Who LetLess Than Five Years Ago

POTENTIAL REASONS FOR LEAVING:

Thewomenwholeftengineeringlessthanveyearsago

werecomparedtothosewhoarestillinanengineering

career.Currentengineerswerethelargestgroupinourstudy

(N=2099)whilethosewholeftlessthanveyearsagowere

thesmallestgroup(N=291).Werstcomparedthegroups

onvariousdemographicandcareer-relatedvariables.

Are current engineers less likely to be married or to be parents?

NO.Thegroupswerenotsignicantlydifferentinrace,

maritalstatus,orparentalstatus.Bothgroupswereover80%

White,withtwothirdsmarried,and40%hadchildrenliving

athomewiththem.Bothgroupsofwomenwererelatively

evenlydistributedacrossthedifferentagegroups.

Are current engineers more likely to have majored in a particular

area?NO.Thetwogroupsofengineers,forthemostpart,

didnotdifferbydisciplinaryarea.Thetopthreemajorsfor

bothgroupswereChemical,Mechanical,andCivilEngineering.

Did women leave engineering to stay home with children? A

thirdappeartohavedoneso,buttwothirdsofthewomen

wholeftareworkingfulltimeinanothereld,and78%of

thoseareworkinginmanagementorexecutivelevelpositions.

Forthosewhoarecurrentlyworking,therewerenosignicant

differencesbetweenthosewholeftandthosewhostayedin

theaveragerangeofsalary.

Wenextcomparedwomencurrentlyworkinginengineering

withthosewholefttheeldkeypsychologicalfactors.Itis

possiblethatcurrentengineersdifferedfromwomenwho

leftengineeringwithregardtotheirlevelsofself-condence,

expectedoutcomesfromperformingcertaintasks,or

underlyinginterests.Wespecicallyexaminedcondence

andexpectedoutcomesinthreecriticalareasthatcomprise

asuccessfulengineeringcareerforwomen:performing

engineeringtasks,managingmultiplework-liferoles,and

navigatingthepoliticallandscapeatwork.

Are current engineers more likely than women who let

engineering less than fve years ago to:

becondentoftheirabilitiesasanengineerorwhatthey

expectfromperformingengineeringtasks?NO.

becondentoftheirabilitiestonavigatethepoliticalclimate

orwhattheyexpectfrommanagingthesedynamics?NO.

becondentoftheirabilitiestomanagemultiplework-life

roledemandsorwhattheyexpectfrommanagingmultiple

roles?NO.

haveinterestsinengineeringrelatedactivities?NO.

CURRENT ENGINEERS:

MANAGING MULTIPLE ROLES

Arewomensperceptionsofmanagingmultipleroles

inuencedbypsychologicalvariables,suchasself-condence,

orbytheirsupervisororotherworkplacefactors?

Theanswerwasboth.Thethreemostimportantcontributors

toacurrentengineersexperienceofconictbetweenwork

andfamilyroleswastheirlackofself-condenceintheir

abilitytomanagemultipleroles,beingoverloadedbytheir

currentworkrole(includingthefactthattheyweregiven

toomanytasksandhadtoomuchresponsibilitywithout

commensurateresources),andworkinginanuncivilwork

environmentthattreatedwomeninacondescendingand

patronizingmanner.

Theuseofacompanyswork-lifebenetpoliciesexacerbatedthe

conictthatengineersexperiencedbetweentheirwork-liferoles.

Thegreatertheconictexperiencedbetweenworkandnon-work

roles,thegreateristheintentiontoleavetheorganizationas

wellastheprofession.


10/64

10

CURRENT ENGINEERS:

PREDICTING SATISFACTION AND TURNOVER

Wealsoexaminedwomensperceptionsofthework

environmentandwhetherthoseperceptionsinuenced

satisfactionorretention.Womenwholeftengineering

differedsignicantlyfromcurrentengineersonperceptions

oftheworkplaceclimate,bothintermsofsupportsand

barrierstheyencountered.Weexaminedworkplacesupport

attwolevels:rst,theextenttowhichtheirorganizations

supportedtheirtraininganddevelopment,providedavenues

foradvancement,valuedtheircontributionsatwork,and

createdasupportiveclimateforfulllingmultipleliferole

obligations.Second,supportwasassessedintermsofthe

extenttowhichthewomenengineersreportedhavinga

mentor,andreceivedsupportfromtheirsupervisorsand

co-workers.Wealsoexaminedtwotypesworkplacerelated

barriersthatcouldimpacttheirlevelsofsatisfactionaswellasthoughtsofleaving:workplaceclimatefactorswerecaptured

bytheextenttowhichsupervisors,seniormanagers,and

co-workersunderminedthemand/ortreatedthemina

condescending,patronizing,ordiscourteousmanner.A

secondsetofworkplacebarriersfocusedontheextentto

whichwomenengineerslackedclarityintheirroles,

experiencedcontradictoryandconictingworkrequests

andrequirements,andwereoverburdenedwithexcessive

workresponsibilitieswithoutcommensurateresources.

Are current engineers more likely than women who let

engineering less than fve years ago to: experience dierent types o support?YES.Currentengineers

weresignicantlymorelikelytoperceiveopportunitiesfor

traininganddevelopment.Interestingly,thecurrentengi-

neersreportedfewerwork-lifebenetsavailabletothem,but

weresignicantlymorelikelytohaveusedthosebenets.

have a mentoring relationship?NO.Onlyaboutaquarterof

eachgroupreportedhavingamentorandtherewereno

differencesinsatisfactionwithmentoring.

encounter supportive supervisors and co-workers?YES.

encounter role related barriers in the work environment?NO.

encounter organizational level barriers in the work environment?YES.Currentengineersweresignicantlylesslikelytoperceive

organizationalbarriers.Specically,theywerelesslikelyto

perceiveeitherco-workersorsupervisorsasundermining

them,perceivedlesssexismintheenvironment,andwere

lesslikelytovieworganizationaltimedemandsasabarrier.

Finally,welookedatwhatpredictscurrentengineersjob

andcareersatisfactionandtheirintentiontoleavetheir

companiesaswellastheeldofengineering.

Do workplace barriers aect current women engineers satisac-

tion?YES.Thetwobarriersthatmostnegativelyinuenced

womenssatisfactionlevelswerework-roleuncertainlyandaworkenvironmentthatconsistentlyunderminedthem.

Do workplace supports aect current women engineers

satisaction?YES.Differentformsofsupport,suchastraining

anddevelopmentopportunities,supportiveco-workersand

supervisors,andcompaniesthatallowedemployeestimeto

balancetheirmultipleliferoles,werepositivelyrelatedto

satisfaction.

Do climate actors inluence intention to leave their job?

YES.Bothworkplaceclimateandpersonalfactorsinuenced

intentiontoleave.Beingunderminedbytheirsupervisors,

perceivingthattheorganizationwasnotsupportiveofthem,

andthattheirmanagerswereunwillingtoaccommodate

theirdesiretobalancemultipleliferoles,predictedtheir

intentiontoleavetheircurrentorganizations.

What predicts intention to leave engineering as a career?

Feelingalackofcondenceintheirabilitytoperform

engineeringtasksandmanagemultiplerolescombinedwith

notbeingpositiveabouttheoutcomestheyexpectedfrom

performingengineeringtasksleadswomenengineersto

considerquittingtheengineeringeldaltogether.Theother

twomostsignicantcontributorstowomensintentionsto

quitengineeringwereexcessiveworkresponsibilitieswithou

commensurateresourcesandalackofclarityregardingtheir

workroles.

What predicts job and career satisaction?Perceivingthat

theorganizationissupportiveandprovidesopportunities

foradvancement.Personalfactorsalsowererelatedtojob

andcareersatisfaction:womenwhoreportedhighlevelsof

self-condenceinnavigatingtheirorganizationspolitical

landscapeandjugglingmultipleliferolesandwhoexpected

positiveoutcomestoresultfromtheireffortstonavigatethe

organizationalclimateatwork,weremostlikelytoexpress

bothjobandcareersatisfaction.

Do psychological actors predict intention to stay better than

work environment actors?NO.Womensintentiontostayin

engineeringasaeldandintheircurrentorganizationisbes

predictedbyacombinationofpsychologicalvariablesrelated

tocondence,expectedoutcomes,andinterests,aswellas

supportsandbarriersencounteredatwork.


11/64

11CHAPTER: ON E

1:

INTRODUCTIONWhy Study Women Engineers?TheNationalAcademyofEngineeringhasclearlyshown

thattheUSneedstechnologicalexpertisetobecompetitive

intheglobalmarket,anditiscriticaltotrainengineersto

providethatexpertise.However,researchshowsthatwomen

aremuchmorelikelytoleaveanengineeringcareer,thus

losingmanyoftheengineersUScollegesaretraining.Women

are,infact,underrepresentedintheeldofengineeringat

everylevel.Mostoftheresearchoneffectiveinterventions

hassuccessfullyfocusedonincreasingwomenschoice

ofengineeringmajor.Theresultisthatwomenarenow

nearly20%ofengineeringgraduates.However,only11%of

professionalengineersarewomen(NationalScienceFoundation,

2011),astatisticthathasbeenstablefornearly20years.

Infact,theproportionofwomenengineershasdeclined

slightlyinthepastdecade,suggestingthat,whilethepool

ofqualiedwomenengineeringgraduateshasincreased,

theyarenotstayingintheeldofengineering.Clearly,while

oureducationalsystemishavingsomesuccessatattracting

andgraduatingwomenfromengineeringprograms,women

whoearnengineeringdegreesaredisproportionatelychoosing

nottopersistinengineeringcareers,andresearchhasnot

systematicallyinvestigatedwhatfactorsmaycontributeto

theirdecisions.

Womensdecisionsnottopersistmaybeduetotheir

ownconcernsaboutmanagingtheorganizationalclimate,

performingengineeringtasks,orbalancingworkandfamily

roles(Smith,1993)orcouldbeduetoenvironmentalbarriers,

suchasfacingachillyorganizationalclimate,particularly

duringparentingyears(SocietyofWomenEngineers,2007).

Womenmayalsoencounterorganizationalbarrierswhen

theyreachajuncturetomoveintomanagementfrom

engineeringroles.Itistherefore,criticaltounderstand

thediversityoffactorsthatleadsomewomentopersistin

engineeringandotherstoleaveit,asoureducationalsystem

mayhavearoleinbetterpreparingwomenengineersfor

workforcechallenges.Inaddition,theorganizationsthat

employwomenengineershaveavitalroleincreatingwork

environmentsthatbothattractandretainwomenengineers.

Therearepersonalcoststochoosingtoleaveacareerfor

whichonehastrainedlongandhardfor.Thereisalsoa

societalcosttolosingthepotentialof,ortheinvestmentin,

atrainedworkforce,particularlyatatimewhenthereisa

shortageoftechnologicalemployeesintheUnitedStates.In

short,itisimportanttounderstandthefactorsthatleadto

womenschoicestoleaveengineeringsothateducationalandorganizationalinstitutionscanintervenetoshiftthosechoices.

Background on EngineeringLabor ForceU.S.leadershipintechnicalinnovationhasbeenavigorous

forcebehindeconomicprosperityforatleastthelast50years.

RecentconcernaboutdecliningnumbersofU.S.citizens

choosingtoentertechnicalcareersandtheincrease

intechnologicaltalentandjobsoverseasledCongressto

asktheNationalAcademyofSciencestoanalyzetheU.S.

technicaltalentpoolandmakepolicyrecommendations

toadvanceU.S.competitivenessinglobalresearchand

developmentmarkets (CommitteeonScience,Engineering,

andPublicPolicy,2007).Thereporteffectivelyarguesforthe

increasedimportanceoftechnologytotheU.S.economy,

demonstratesglobaltrendsinresearchanddevelopment

thatfavorothercountries,andhighlightstheneedforconcrete

actiontoenhanceU.S.competitiveness.However,while

thereportbrieynotesthatU.S.womenandminoritiesare

underrepresentedinscienceandtechnology,itdoesnot

addresstheadditionallossofwomenfromtechnology

careers,post-graduation,whichrepresentsasubstantial

lossoftalentfromthetechnicalworkforce.

Aswenoteabove,womenarethemostunderrepresented

intheengineeringdisciplines.Thelossofwomenfromthe

professionaftertheycompletetheirundergraduatedegreeis

particularlydishearteningaswellascostlytotheeducational

system,society,andtowomenpersonally,giventhelargetime,

effort,andmonetaryinvestmentintheireducation.Asnoted

inarecentreviewofresearchongirlspersistenceinscience

andengineering,littleisknownaboutwhathappenstowomen


12/64


oncetheyentertheengineeringworkforce(NationalScience

Foundation,2006).However,areportrecentlyreleasedbythe

SocietyofWomenEngineers (2007)suggeststhattheyleave

engineeringcareersinpartbecausetheyencounterachilly

organizationalclimatewhentheyreachchildbearingage

anddesiretobalanceworkandfamilyroles.

Factors Related to Employee TurnoverForanyindividual,thedecisiontopersistorchangecareers,

jobs,ororganizationsisoftenprecipitatedbyavarietyof

factorsthatinuencethetrajectoryofthechoiceprocess.

Henceitisimportanttocaptureboththemoreimmediate

predictorsofthatchoice(suchaswithdrawalcognitions)

aswellasmoredistalpredictors(suchasattitudestowards

theircareerandotherbarriersandsupports)thatleadto

eitherpersistenceinacareerorthedecisiontoleave.By

examiningtheantecedentsofemployeeturnover,itispossible

togainanewunderstandingofsomeofthefactorsthatinuenceindividualsdecisionstostayorleaveagivencareer

eld,job,ororganization.

Employeeturnoverhasbeenthesubjectofintenseempirical

andtheoreticalscrutinyforseveraldecadesandhasgenerated

animpressivebodyofknowledgeaboutthewithdrawal

process(e.g.,Grifth,Hom,&Gaertner,2000;Lee,Mitchell,

Holtom,McDaniel,&Hill,1999;Mitchell,Holtom,Lee,Sablynski,

&Erez,2001).Turnoverdecisionresearchpointsoutthat

employeesengageinthinkingaboutquittingwhichmay

ormaynotresultinactualquitting;insteadthesethought

processes(withdrawalcognitions)maytriggeralternativeformsofwithdrawalsuchasplanstosearchforalternative

jobopportunities,generalthoughtsorconsiderationsof

quitting,andintentionstoquit(Hanisch,1995).Withdrawal

cognitionsalsoincludetheconceptofpsychological

withdrawal,whichreferstoadeliberatere-directionof

thoughtprocessesandpersonalplansawayfromones

currentposition.Thesecognitionsaremanifestedinabroad,

encompassingreductionofinputstoonescurrentrolesuch

asabsenteeism,lateness,andinattention,orbasicneglect

ofduties(Hanisch,1995;Shaffer&Harrison,1998).Employees

whoremainintheorganizationbutarepsychologically

withdrawnmayincurindirectcoststotheirorganizationsthroughreducedproductivityandreducedstaffmorale.

Further,psychologicalwithdrawalmayalsobedamagingto

theemployeeintheformofdiminishedself-esteem,impaired

relationshipsatworkandhome,andinterruptedcareers.

Prevailingmodelsofvoluntaryturnoverandaccumulated

researchevidenceindicatethatwithdrawalcognitionsarethe

immediateprecursorstoactual,voluntaryturnoverdecisions

(Griffethetal.,2000;Hom&Kinicki,2001;Maertz&Campion,

2004).Withdrawalcognitions,inturn,areusuallyprecipitated

bynegativeevaluationsaboutonesjob(i.e.,lowerjobsatis

faction)andloweredcommitmenttotheorganization.This

isconsistentwithattitudetheory(Ajzen&Fishbein,1980)

whichpositsthatbehaviorisdeterminedbytheintention

toperformthebehaviorandthatthisintentionis,inturn,

afunctionoftheattitudetowardthebehavior.Researchon

voluntaryturnoverprocesshasshowngeneralsupportfor

thisunfoldingsequenceofexitbehavior:jobdissatisfaction

andloweredcommitmentprogressestowardwithdrawal

cognitions,andwithdrawalcognitionsinturn,leadto

turnover.Researchontherelationshipbetweenturnover

intentionsandattitudinalvariablessuchasjobsatisfaction

andorganizationalcommitmenthavefoundthatbothjob

satisfactionandcommitmentwerenegativelycorrelated

withwithdrawalcognitions (e.g.,George&Jones,1996;Hom&

Kinicki,2001;Rosin&Korabik,1995),andwithdrawalcognitions

predictedturnover(e.g.,Hom&Kinicki,2001).

Despitedifferencesinlabormarketbehaviorsbymen

andwomen,researchongenderdifferencesinvoluntary

turnoverhasbeensurprisinglylimited.Furthermore,

existingresearchhasproducedinconsistentndings.For

examplesomestudiesindicatethatwomenandpeopleof

colortendtoleavetheirjobsatahigherratethanCaucasian

males(e.g.,Cox&Blake,1991;Stuart,1992)whileotherstudie

reporttheoppositeeffect:turnoverformalesisgreaterthantha

forfemales(e.g.,Barrick,Mount,&Strauss,1994;Blau&Lunz,1998)

Giventhatwithdrawalbehaviorprogressesintheseclearly

identiablestages,itisimportanttounderstandabroad

rangeofbarriersandsupportsthatmayleadtopoorcareer

commitment,psychologicalwithdrawal,andintentionsto

quittheorganizationandtheengineeringprofession.

Byunderstandingtheprocessthatleadstoturnover

fromengineeringcareers,wewillbebetterabletodesign

appropriateinterventionsthatfacilitatewomensdecision

topersistinengineeringcareers.


13/64

13

Womens Preparation toEnter STEM FieldsWhileweknowlittleaboutthefactorsthatpredictthe

turnoverofemployedengineers,therehasbeenresearch

topredictinitialvocationalchoicesofengineeringasa

careerwithinK-16educationalsettings.Thisresearchhas

examinednotonlyengineeringasacareerchoice,butalso

thechoicestotaketheadvancedmathematicsandscience

classesthatarecriticaltoengineeringeducationatthe

baccalaureatelevel.

Researchhassuggestedinterventionsthatfocusonincreasing

girlsparticipationthatincludepromotingmath/science

interests(e.g.,OBrien,1996) ,promotingthehuman-value

characteristicsofengineering (Eccles,2007),increasing

parentalsupportformathandadvancedclasses(e.g.,Burgard,

2000),promotingpositiveenvironments(e.g.,Dooley,2001) ,

focusingontheoutcomeexpectationsofmathandscience

(e.g.,Edwardson,1998;Nauta&Epperson,2003)andincreasing

math/scienceandengineeringself-efcacy(Mau,2003).

Collegeshavealsoinstitutedsystemicinterventions,such

astheModelInstitutesforExcellence,aNationalScience

Foundationprogram,thatincludementoring,tutoring,

targetedadvising,andfacultydevelopment.And,indeed,

therehasbeenasmallbutmeasurableimprovementin

womensgraduationratesinengineeringoverthelastdecade.

Forexample,from1995to2010,thepercentageofwomen

whohaveearnedbachelorsdegreesinengineeringhas

increasedfrom17.3%to20.1%(NationalScienceFoundation,

2011),andtheimpactofrecenteducationalinterventionef-

fortswilllikelybeseenincomingyears.

Womenwhodochooseengineeringandpersistthrough

theeducationalsystemtoachieveatechnicaldegreehave

demonstratedinterestintheireld(Davey,2001),expect

positiveoutcomesfromtheirparticipation (Shaefers,Epperson

&Nauta,1997),possessthemath,science,andengineering

self-efcacysufcienttonavigaterequiredtechnicalcoursework

(Lentetal,2003),andvaluetheoccupationalcharacteristics

oftechnicaljobs(Eccles,2007).Thus,onewouldexpectthat

womenwhoearnengineeringdegreeswouldbelikelyto

persistandbesuccessfulintheircareers.However,womens

representativenumbersinengineeringandthephysical

sciencesdeclinesignicantlypost-graduationandtheoc-

cupationalpipelinecontinuestonarrowsuchthatwomen

arelessandlessrepresentedovertheircareerspan(Preston,

2004;SocietyofWomenEngineers,2007).

Women Leave Engineering CareersMore Than Other FieldsPreston(2004)reportedthatallengineersleavetheeld

ataratefourtimesthatofdoctors,threeandahalftimes

thatoflawyersandjudges,and15-30%morethannurses

orcollegeteachers.Specictoengineering,theSocietyof

WomenEngineers(SWE)recentlyreportedthatoneinfour

womenwhoenterengineeringhavelefttheprofession

afterage30,comparedtooneintenmaleengineers(SWE,

2007).However,whilethesestudieshavedocumentedthat

womenhavelefttheeldofengineering,theyhavenot

focusedonthepsychologicalprocessesinvolvedinmaking

theirdecisiontoleavetheprofession.Theirdecisioncould

berelatedtoconcernswithwork/familybalanceorlackof

advancementopportunities.Itcouldbebecausetheyreach

ajuncturewheretheyhavetodecidetoenteramanagement

career,orfacethepossiblylimitedopportunitiesthatmaycomewithanexclusivelytechnicalengineeringrole.Itcould

bethattheynolongerenjoytheworkofanengineer.Itcould

bebecausetheyencounterachillyorganizationalclimate.

Therearemanypossibilitiesthathavesurfacedfromanecdotal

accountsbutlittleresearchtooffersometangibleevidence.

...I got to a certain point inmy engineering career whenI NO LONGER ADVANCED. I eltI needed additional education

to move orward, but no topics

interested me as much as

computer programming, so I

changed my career to that.

It was a good change. I have

been more successul in the

computer eld than I was in

the engineering eld.

Caucasian Mechanical Engineering graduate


14/64

OUR STUDY

The problem we set out to investigate was why women choose to leave engineering careers. Much o the research

on career choices has been based on the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, & Hackett 2002). The SCCT model

has been used to help explain the actors related to initial career choice, but has not yet been studied to explain careerpersistence decisions in the workplace. We extended this model to predict womens choices related to engineering

persistence in the workplace by incorporating research related to career attitudes (career satisaction and commitment),

psychological withdrawal, and turnover intentions.

We hope that this research can help us develop interventions(educational, organizational, and/or personal) to possibly

STEM THE TIDE OF DEPARTURE AND INCREASE WOMENS PERSISTENCE IN ENGINEERING CAREERS.The results rom this study may be useul to employers who seek to attract and retain talented women engineers, and in

doing so, realize their investment in their technical employees. Understanding the dynamics o womens technical

career paths over their liespan may also support development o interventions or womens university education, perhapsto better prepare uture engineers or challenges they will ace in the workplace.



15/64

15WOMEN IN ENGINEERING 2011 REPORT

2:PARTICIPANTSPROFILEANDSTUDY PROCEDURESIn November o 2009, we launched POWER (Project on Women Engineers Retention), a national longitudinal

study unded by the National Science Foundation, to investigate women engineers experiences in technical

workplaces. In collaboration with ENTECH (Empowering Nonprofts in Technology) at the University o

Wisconsin-Milwaukee, we developed a website or POWER, which includes inormation about the study

and a link to the survey. Data rom the frst phase o the longitudinal study have been collected and our

report is based on the fndings rom this frst wave o participants.

Who Are The Participants?Atotalof3,745womenwhograduatedwithabachelors

degreeinengineeringparticipatedandcompletedthestudy.

Ofthis,560(15%)womenobtainedadegreebutnever

workedasanengineer,1,086(29%)womenpreviously

workedasanengineerbuthavelefttheeldsince(291of

theseleftlessthanveyearsago),and2,099(56%)women

arecurrentlyworkinginengineering.

WOMEN WHO GRADUATED BUT

DID NOT ENTER ENGINEERING

Thisgroupofwomenearnedabachelorsinengineering

butdidnotentertheeld.Thiswasthemostraciallyand

ethnicallydiversegroupinthestudy.Womeninthisgroup

include:65%Caucasian,18%Multi-racial,9%Asian,5%

AfricanAmerican,2%Latina,andlessthan1%American

Indian.Ofthosewhoreportedtheirmaritalstatus,about

half(46%)ofthewomenweremarried,athird(29%)were

notmarried,andasmallpercentageindicatedthatthey

wereeithernotmarriedbutinacommittedrelationship

(4%),divorced(3%),separated(


16/64


CURRENT ENGINEERS

Womenwhoarecurrentlyworkinginengineeringrepresent

thelargestgroupinthestudy(2,099).Aswiththeother

groups,mostofthewomenself-identiedthemselvesasWhite

(84%),8%wereAsian,4%indicatedmulti-racialheritage,2%

AfricanAmerican,2%Latina,andlessthan1%asAmerican

Indian.Abouttwo-thirdsofthewomenweremarried(62%),22%

reportednotbeingmarried,8%wereinacommittedrelationship,

5%weredivorced,1%wereseparated,and


17/64


3:WOMEN

WHO NEVERENTEREDTHE FIELDOFENGINEERINGAFTER EARNING THEIRUNDERGRADUATEDEGREE IN ENGINEERING

You have to be a bitTOUGHERwhen you are around the guys,you eel you have to do better

than them to be accepted Caucasian Operations & Research Engineering graduate

I interviewed with a company where there were NO WOMENworking there, besides secretaries, NO MINORITIES and noone in the young adult age group. Arican American Chemical Engineering graduate

I do not know why otherwomen leave engineering.I got an engineering

degree because I was very

good at math & sciences

and wanted a technical &

CHALLENGING degree. Caucasian Electrical Engineering graduate


18/64


WHO ARE THE WOMEN WHO NEVER

ENTERED THE ENGINEERING FIELD?

Fifteenpercentofengineeringalumnaewho

participatedinthePOWERstudywerewomen

whoneverenteredanengineeringeldafter

receivingadegreeinengineering.Ofthewomen

whoneverentered(n=560),themajority

(n=267,48%)graduatedbetweentheyears

2000-2010.

MorethanhalfofthePOWERparticipants

(65%)whohaveneverenteredanengineereldwereWhite.Thesecondlargestgroup

wasofparticipantswhoidentiedwithmore

thanonerace(18%).Theageofthewomen

intheNon-Entrantsgrouprangedfrom22-66

yearsold.Nearlyhalf(46%)ofthewomenwere

marriedand29%reportedneverbeingmarried.

Mostofthewomenreportedhavingaspouse

thatisemployedfull-time.Mostofthewomen

whohaveneverenteredanengineeringeld

arenotparents(61%)andthemajorityofthem

(98%)didnotcarefordependents.

25%20%15%10%5%0%

Prior to 1983

1984-1989

1990-1994

1995-1999

2000-2004

2005-2010

Total

American Indian0%

AsianAfrican-American

Latina2%

5%

Multi-racial

18%

White

66%

9%

Figure 1 Percentage of Women Who Never Entered Engineering

Based on Graduation Year

Figure 2Racial/Ethnic Background of Women Who Never Entered Engineering


19/64

19

IndividualContributor37%

Executive40%

Manager23%

CHAPTER THREE

Mostwomen(64%)whohaveneverentered

anengineeringeldreportedworkingatleast

40hoursperweekinacurrentnon-engineering

position.Individualsalaryrangedfromlessthan

$50,000-tomorethan$151,000.Twenty-six

percentofwomenwhoneverenteredtheengi-

neeringeldreportedearninglessthan$50,000

and25%make$51,000-$100,000.Thirtypercent

ofparticipantsinthisgroupreportedafamily

totalincomeofmorethan$151,000,15%earned

$101,000-$150,000,14%earnedbetween$51,000-

$100,000,and10%earnedlessthan50,000.

ThehighestpercentageofwomenintheNon-Entrantsgroup(40%)reportedhavingan

executivemanagementstatusposition.Other

womeninthegroup(23%)reportedeither

havingamanagerstatuspositionoranindividual

contributorposition(37%).

WHAT IS THE EDUCATIONAL

BACKGROUND OF WOMEN WHO

NEVER ENTERED ENGINEERING?

Thetopvemajorareasofstudyreportedby

morethanhalfoftheNon-Entrantsincluded

thefollowing:IndustrialEngineering(21.6%),

ChemicalEngineering(12.8%),Mechanical

Engineering(12.7%),ElectricalEngineering(10

%),andBioengineering(8.7%).

Nearlyhalf(46.3%)oftheNon-Entrantshadan

additionaldegree.Ofthewomenwhoreceived

anadditionaldegree,18%earnedanM.S.

degree,12%earnedanadditionalM.B.Adegree,

11%earnedaB.S.,and4%earnedaPhD.

25%

30%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Individual Salary

$151,000+$101,000-

150,000

$51,000-

100,000

$50,000

and less

Family Total Income

Figure 3Individual and Family Income based on the Percentage of

Women Who Never Entered Engineering

Figure 4Organizational Rank of Women Who Never Entered Engineering


20/64


WHAT ARE THESE WOMEN DOING NOW?

Table 1:Primary Activities of Women Who Never Entered Engineering (for Different Years of Graduation)

Primary Activity Before 1983 1984-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2010 Total

Currently working

(in non-engineering industry)29 59 67 100 107 86 448

Family care 2 10 10 5 12 5 44

Retired 2 1 0 0 0 0 3

Volunteer 0 0 1 0 0 3

Other 0 2 2 3 15 39 61

Total Responses = 560

Figure 5Primary Activities of Women Who Never Entered Engineering

Currently Working(non-engineering industry)

80%

Other11%

Family CareVolunteer1%

8%


21/64

21CHAPTER THREE

KEY FINDINGS:80% are working ull time in another eld

Organizational climate was a actor in not entering engineering

- lack o fexibility, didnt like the culture, management not appealing

Lack o interest cited as a reason not to enter engineering

20% never planned to enter and pursued other post-graduate degrees

20% wanted to start their own business

ENGINEERING SCHOOL WAS PURE HELL or me - my personality inspiredmuch sexist behavior rom my male classmates and my T.A.s...At some point, ater many interviews, I decided that I wouldnt

want to spend the majority o my waking hours with the type o

people interviewing me. Caucasian Mechanical Engineering graduate

WHY DID WOMEN WITH AN ENGINEERING DEGREE NEVER ENTER THE ENGINEERING FIELD?

Table 2: Reasons Why Women Never Entered Engineering for Different Years of Graduation

Reason For Not Entering Before 1983 1984-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2010 Total

couldnt nd position 1 11 3 8 13 14 50

management not appealing 0 2 3 3 7 5 20

too dicult 2 3 4 5 4 8 26

low salary 1 2 8 17 11 8 47

no advancement 1 3 6 11 9 10 40

not fexible enough 2 2 6 7 14 14 45

never planned to enter 4 16 11 20 32 24 107

wanted to start own business 7 14 16 21 29 36 123

didnt like culture 4 13 18 28 27 29 119

not interested in engineering 9 25 24 34 46 32 170



22/64



23/64


In my experience, women leaveengineering orFAMILY REASONS.I let engineering when I had myrst child. I decided to stay

home with my children...we

moved to an area with very ew

engineering jobs. So I decided to

go back to school and become a

math teacher. Caucasian Electrical Engineering Graduate

[There is no] opportunity or advancement in a male-dominated eld- the culture o engineering is male-centricwith HIGH EXPECTATIONS or travel and little personal time. Caucasian Chemical Engineering Graduate

4:WOMENWHO LEFTTHEENGINEERINGFIELDOVER FIVEYEARS AGO

There is not a strong network oemales in engineering. You eitherneed to learn to be one o the guys

orBLAZE THE TRAIL YOURSELF, whichis very dicult. I deviated rom

engineering... but work now in

construction, where I am the only

emale executive ocer. Caucasian Agricultural Engineering Graduate


24/64


American Indian0%

AsianAfrican-American

Latina2%

Multi-racial 2%

4%

White

85%

6%

WHO ARE THE WOMEN WHO

LEFT OVER FIVE YEARS AGO?

Thirtythreepercentofengineeringalumnae

whoparticipatedinthePOWERstudywere

womenwhoenteredanengineeringeldafter

receivingadegreeinengineeringandhaveleft

theeldmorethanveyearsago.Ofthewom-

enwhodidnotpersistinengineeringandleft

morethanveyearsago(n=795),thelargest

group(n=243,31%)graduatedpriorto1983.

Themajorityofthisgroupofwomenengineers

(85%)wasWhiteandreportedbeingmarried

(79%)with11%reportingneverbeingmarried.

Mostofthewomenreportedhavingaspouse

thatisemployedfull-time.Mostofthewomen

whohavelefttheengineeringeldoverve

yearsagoareparents(62%).

25%20%15% 35%30%10%5%0%

Prior to 1983

1984-1989

1990-1994

1995-1999

2000-2004

2005-2010

Total

Figure 2Racial/Ethnic Background of Women

who Left Engineering Over Five Years

Figure 1 Percentage of Women Who Left the Engineering Field More Than

Five Years Ago Based on Graduation Year


25/64

25CHAPTER FOUR

Almosthalf(45%)ofthewomenwholeftthe

engineeringeldoverveyearsagoreported

workingatleast40hoursperweekinacurrent

non-engineeringposition.Individualsalary

rangedfromlessthan$50,000-tomorethan

$151,000.Twenty-twopercentofwomenin

thisgroupreportedearningbetween$101,000-

150,000and13%earnmorethan$151,000.

Forty-onepercentofwomeninthisgroup

reportedearningafamilytotalincomeofmore

than$151,000.

Morethanhalfofthewomeninthisgroupreportedbeinginanexecutivemanagementpo-

sition,15%wereinamanagerialposition,and

30%reportedbeingindividualcontributors.

WHAT IS THE EDUCATIONAL BACK-

GROUND OF WOMEN ENGINEERS

WHO LEFT ENGINEERING OVER FIVE

YEARS AGO?

Thetopvemajorareasofstudyreportedby

thisgroupincludedthefollowing:IndustrialEngineering(22%),MechanicalEngineering

(18%),ChemicalEngineering(15%),Electrical

Engineering(15%),andCivilEngineering(8%).

Almosthalf(41%)ofthisgroupofwomen

engineersearnedanadditionaldegree:25%

earnedanM.S.degree,14%earnedanMBA

degree,9%earnedaB.S.,and4%earnedanad-

ditionalM.A.degree,and2%earnedaPhD.

IndividualContributor30%

Executive55%

Manager15%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%Individual Salary

$151,000+$101,000-

150,000

$51,000-

100,000

$50,000

and less

Family Total Income

Figure 3Individual and Family Income Based on the Percentage

of Women Who Left Over Five Years

Figure 4:Organizational Rank of Women Who Left Engineering

Over 5 Years Ago


26/64


WHAT ARE THESE WOMEN DOING NOW?

Primary Activities of Women Who Left Engineering Over Five Years Ago (For Different Years of Graduation)

What are they currently doing? Before 1983 1984-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2010 Total

currently working

(in non-engineering industry) 154 150 101 92 36 2 535

Family care 32 60 42 27 7 3 171

Retired 26 3 0 1 0 0 30

Volunteer 12 3 2 1 0 0

Other 18 7 3 7 1 0 36


Figure 5Primary Activities of Women Engineers

Who Left Engineering Over 5 years Ago

Volunteer2%

Other

Retired

Currently Working68%

Family Care

22%4%

4%


27/64

27CHAPTER FOUR

KEY FINDINGSMore than two-thirds are working in another eld, hal o those are in

executive positions

Nearly hal o women let a career in engineering because o working conditions

- too much travel, lack o advancement, or low salary.

Thirty percent let engineering because o organizational climate

A quarter let a career in engineering because they wanted more time with amily

[I let because I wanted] more OPPORTUNITY FORADVANCEMENT in non-engineering positions Caucasian Mechanical Engineering Graduate

WHAT WERE THE REASONS FOR LEAVING ENGINEERING?

Reasons Why Women Left Engineering (For Different Years of Graduation)

Reason Left Before 1983 1984-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2010 Total

too dicult 3 2 0 1 0 0 6

couldnt nd position 4 0 6 5 1 0 16

started own business 8 3 7 2 1 0 21

Didnt like co-workers 4 0 6 7 6 1 24

too much travel 15 3 12 12 2 0 44

low salary 10 4 15 14 3 2 48

too many hours 27 6 18 11 6 0 68

confict with amily 38 8 16 7 1 0 70

poor working conditions 21 1 23 20 8 1 74

Didnt like boss 26 2 22 23 9 2 84

Didnt like culture 24 3 27 18 12 1 85

Didnt like daily tasks 28 5 26 40 15 1 115

no advancement 45 8 41 38 8 2 142

lost interest 32 6 40 41 13 2 134

wanted more time with amily 76 13 58 30 7 1 185

Total Responses = 1116 (Note: women could choose more than one reason)


28/64



29/64

29

5:CURRENTANDFORMERWOMEN ENGINEERS:WHO ARE THEYANDWHAT ARETHEY DOING?

being a female minority, it wasDIFFICULT to work with white men whowere much older than me and did notshare a similar background. Asian American Chemical Engineering graduate

Te pressure is intense, and withno viable part-time alternatives, awoman [engineer] is FORCED TOCHOOSEbetween work and family. Caucasian Civil Engineering graduate

Women leave engineering due to lack o jobsatisaction, lack o reliable emale rolemodels, infexible work schedules, workplace

discrimination, WHITE MIDWESTERN MEN syndrome,and glass ceiling issues. Latina Civil Engineering Graduate


30/64


PROFILE OF WOMEN ENGINEERS

Thestudywasdesignedtounderstandwhywomen

engineersleavetheeldofengineering.Forthose

whoarecurrentlyworkinginengineering,wesought

togauge/assesstheirintentionstoleavetheeldand

toexplainfactorsrelatedtotheirsatisfactionwiththeir

jobandwithanengineeringcareer.Werstreporton

twogroupsofwomeninthischapter;thosewhoare

currentlyworkingasengineersandthosewholeft

recently,lessthanveyearsago.Wechose5yearsasa

cutoffforourcomparisonpointtoprovidesimilartime

framesforcomparisonaswellastoensurethatrecol-

lectionswererecentenoughtobeaccurate.Thus,thewomenwholeftengineeringlessthanveyearsago

werecomparedtothosewhoarestillinanengineering

career.Currentengineerswerethelargestgroupinour

study(N=2,099)whilethosewholeftlessthanve

yearsagowerethesmallestgroup(N=291).Ascan

beseenfromtheotherchaptersinthisreport,the

womenwhohadleftengineeringlessthanveyears

agowereoverallthesmallestgroupinoursample.

Wedonotknowwhythismightbethecase.This

groupwasdistributedacrossageandcohortlevels

similartotheothergroups,andwecanassumethat

theyreceivedtheemailinvitationtotakepartinthe

surveyatthesamerateastheotherwomeninthe

study.Itmaybethattheirdecisiontoleaveengineering

leftanemotionallegacythattheydidnotwantto

revisitbyparticipatinginthesurvey.Thisisahypoth-

esis,however,andwereallydonotknowwhytheir

representationisthesmallest.However,thisgroup

ofparticipantswaslargeenoughtoallowustomake

somecomparisonswithwomenwhoarecurrently

workinginengineering.

Werstcomparedthetwogroupsonvarious

backgroundfactors.

Prior to 1983

1984-1989

1990-1994

1995-1999

2000-2004

2005-2010

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Number of Participants

Graduation Year of Current Women Engineers

Prior to 1983

1984-1989

1990-1994

1995-1999

2000-2004

2005-2010

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Number of Participants

Graduation Year of Women Who LeftEngineering in The Past 5 Years


31/64

31CHAPTER FIVE

Mostofthewomenwhoarecurrentlyworkinginengineeringwork43.5hoursaweek,hadbeenwith

theirorganizationfor8years,andreportedearningsalariesrangingfrom$76,000to$125,000.This

groupofwomenwasverydiverseintermsoftheirundergraduateengineeringmajorswithmostofthem

representingchemical,mechanical,andcivilengineeringelds.

45

44

43

42

40

39

38

37

36

0

Hours Worked (per week)

Current Engineers Former Engineers

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Tenure with Current Organization


30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Total Compensation (salary, bonuses, stocks, & commissions)

Under 25K 25-50K 51-75K 76-100K 101-125K 126-150K 151-175K 17-200K Over 201K



32/64


Abouthalfofthemareindividualcontributorsin

theirorganizationwhileone-thirdareinproject

managementpositions.Theleastcommonpositions

occupiedbytheseengineerswereinexecutiveroles

(15%).Consistentwiththepercentageofindividual

contributors,abouthalfoftheengineerswerenotin

asupervisoryrole.Forthoseinmanagementposi-

tions,amajorityofengineersinthisgroupsuper-

visedbetween1to5individuals.Mostworkedin

groupsthatwerepredominantlymalewithasmaller

number(18%)reportingworkingingenderbal-

ancedgroups.

Therewerenosignicantdifferencesbe-

tweenwomenwhoarecurrentlyworkingin

engineeringandthosewholeftengineering

lessthanveyearsagointermsofthehours

worked(38hours/week),lengthoftenure

withtheircompany(5.5years),averagerange

ofsalaryreported(between$51,000and

$75,000),andbothgroupswerelikewise

mostlikelytohavegraduatedwithchemical,

mechanical,andcivilengineeringdegrees.

Similartowomenwhoarecurrentlyworking

inengineering,womenwholeftengineering

wereequallyinnon-management(22%)and

projectmanagementroles(21%).Theleast

commonpositionsoccupiedbytheseengi-

neerswereexecutiveroles(10%).Similarto

womenwhoarecurrentlyinengineering,the

majorityofwomenwholeftlessthan5years

agowerenotinasupervisoryrole.

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Gender Make-up of Co-workers

All Women Mostly Equal # Mostly All MenWomen of Men & Men

Women

C urre nt Engi neers For mer Enginee rs

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

Management Rank

IndividualContributor

Project orProgramManager

Executive

Current Engineers

Former Engineers


33/64

33CHAPTER FIVE

Forthoseinmanagementpositions,themajorityindicatedthattheyhad1to5directreportsandwere

mostlikelytoworkingroupsthatwerepredominantlymale;however,alargernumberwholeftengineer-

ing(25%)reportedworkingingenderbalancedgroups.

Currentwomenengineersinoursamplewerenolesslikelytobemarriedortobeparentsastheircounter-

partswholeftengineeringlessthanveyearsago.Neitherdidthetwogroupsofwomendifferintermsof

theirracewhichwaspredominantlyCaucasian,althoughmany(5%forthosewholeftand4%forcurrent

engineers)reportedmulti-racialheritageaswell.Bothgroupsofwomenwererelativelyevenlydistributed

acrossthedifferentcohort(orgraduationgroups).

50%

40%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Number of Direct Reports

0 1 - 2 3 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 24 25 - 50 50 - 100 over 100

Curre nt Engineer s F orme r Engine ers

Other2%

Latina3%

American Indian0%

Asian

African-American

3%

Multi-racial

White

79%

8% 5%

Racial Ethnic Background of Former Engineers

Latina2%

Asian

African-American 2%

Multi-racial

American Indian0%

White

84%

4%8%

Racial Ethnic Background of Current Engineers


34/64


Worked in a department or 4 years - in that time, 3people out o 50 got promotions - all men. Then only

the women and elders got laid o. Senior VP couldnt

even handle saying hello to emales in the hallway.

His AWKWARD OLD SCHOOL TENDENCIES made him unable to

consider emales as equals. This was at a companywith 90% emale employees throughout the company;

just a lack o emales in the engineering group.

Caucasian Industrial Engineering graduate

Most o management is a male-dominated culture(male conversation topics, long hours, demanding

liestyle, career-ocused expectations). Women

usually choose to leave WITHOUT FIGHTING THE UPHILL BATTLE

to make improvements. It is a sel-sustaining cycle!

Asian American Operations Research and Engineering Graduate

KEY FINDINGCurrent and ormer engineers do not dier in

marital or parental status, engineering major,

salary level, or number o direct reports.


35/64

35

6:WOMEN CURRENTLYWORKINGINENGINEERING:HOW ARE THEYFARINGIN THEIRJOBSANDCAREERS?


36/64


Careersuccesscanbedenedinmanyways.Oneofthe

mostcommonwaysofassessingcareersuccessisbylooking

attangiblesignssuchastotalcompensation,numberof

promotions,rankattainedandothersimilarobjective

indicatorsofsuccess.Othershaveconsideredmoresubjective

criteriasuchassatisfactionwithonesjobandcareerandhaveusedtheseasabenchmarkforcareersuccess.Inthe

POWERstudy,wedenedcareersuccessintermsofsubjective

criteriasuchassatisfactionwithonesjobandcareer,and

objectivecriteriasuchastotalcompensation(includingsalary,

bonuses,stockoptionsetc.),numberofdirectreports,and

numberofrecentpromotions.

Understandingwhatcomprisescareersuccessisimportant

becauseresearchhaslinkedindividualscareersuccessto

importantorganizationalandindividualoutcomessuchas

organizationalcommitment,lackofintentiontoleavethe

companyorthecareer,andperformance.Moreimportantly,

byexaminingthedifferentelementsthatcontributetocareer

success,wecanbegintoshedlightonhowsuccessfulwomen

engineersareintheworkplaces.Todate,theresbeenno

researchthathasuncoveredthedifferentdimensionsofcareer

successforwomenengineersandwhatfactorsinuenceit.

Inthischapter,weexaminefactorsrelatedtothesubjective

experienceofcareersuccess:i.e.,jobandcareerandsatisfaction

ofcurrentengineers.Attheendofthischapter,webriey

comparewomenwhoarecurrentlyworkinginengineering

withthosewholefttheeldonsomeofthesalientfactors

relatedtosatisfaction.

InthePOWERstudy,careersatisfactionwasmeasuredby

askingtheparticipantstoreporttheirlevelsofsatisfaction

withvarietyoffactorssuchaspay,progresstowardcareer

goals,advancement,anddevelopmentofnewskills.Job

satisfactionwascapturedbywomensoverallfeelingstoward

theirjobs.

Thewomenwhoarecurrentlyworkinginengineering

expressedaboveaveragelevelsofsatisfactionwiththeirjobs

andcareers.Mostofthemreportedthattheirlastpromotion

waswithinthepast5years.Asnotedintheprevioussection,

15%areinseniorexecutivepositionsandathirdinproject

managementpositionsand25%hadbothlineandstaffresponsibilities(16%hadonlystaffresponsibilities;27%

hadonlylineresponsibilities,and9%didnotdisclose).

Typically,allthesedimensionsthatcomprisecareersuccess

arestronglyrelatedtooneanotherandwefoundthesame

tobetrueforcurrentwomenengineers.Specically,women

whoreportedhigherlevelsofsatisfactionwiththeirjobs

andcareersalsotendedtobeinmoreseniorexecutiveroles

withgreaternumberofdirectreports,andearninghigher

salariesthanthosewhowererelativelylesssatisedwith

theirjobsandcareers.Womenengineerswhoweresatised

withtheirjobsandcareersalsoindicatedthattheywere

satisedwiththenumberofhourstheyworkedperweek.

WHAT DRIVES THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE

OF CAREER SUCCESS?

Inthisstudy,weintegratedseveraldifferentstrandsofresearch

andlookedatavarietyofpersonalandorganizational

factorsthathavethepotentialtoexplainthesubjective

experienceofcareersuccessasreectedinwomenscareer

andjobsatisfaction.Specically,weexaminedtheeffects

ofwomensself-condencewithregardtoperforming

engineeringtasks,navigatingthepoliticallandscape,and

managingmultipleliferoles,aswellastheoutcomeswomenexpectedfromperformingtheseactivities.

Workplacesupportisakeycomponentoftheoverallwork

environment.Itismanifestedinthemultipletypesand

layersofsupportthatemployeesexperienceatvariouslevels

intheirworkplaces.Ataverybroadlevel,workplacesupport

isreectedintheextenttowhichacompanyvaluesthe

contributionsofitsemployeesandshowscareandconcern

towardtheiremployeeswellbeing.Onecanalsoinferthe

supportivenessofacompanybylookingattheprovision

oftraininganddevelopmentopportunitiesandclearand

tangibleavenuesforadvancement.Workplacesupportcanalsobegaugedbylookingattheinterpersonalnatureof

relationshipswithonessupervisorandco-workers.

Inthisstudy,weexaminedemployeesperceptionsofwork-

placesupportattwolevelsthatcanimpacttheirlevelsof

satisfaction.First,theparticipantsreportedontheextent

towhichtheirorganizationssupportedtheirtrainingand

development,providedavenuesforpromotion,valuedand

recognizedtheircontributionsatwork,andcreatedasupportive

climateforfulllingmultipleliferoleobligations.Second,

weexaminedtheextenttowhichthewomenengineers


37/64

37CHAPTER SIX

receivedsupportfromtheirsupervisorsandco-workers.

Wealsoexaminedtwosetsofworkplacerelatedbarriersthat

couldloweranengineerssatisfactionwithherjoband/or

career.Therstsetoffactorstappedintotheperceptionsof

incivilityintheworkplacethatwascapturedbytheextentto

whichsupervisors,seniormanagers,andco-workerstreated

womeninacondescending,patronizing,ordiscourteous

manner.Wealsodirectlyassessedtheextenttowhichsupervisors

andco-workersengagedinunderminingbehaviorsatwork

suchasinsultingwomen,talkingbadlyaboutthembehind

theirbacks,belittlingthemortheirideas,makingthem

feelincompetent,and/ortalkingdowntothem.Thesecond

setoffactorsbelievedtolowersatisfactionfocusedonmore

role-levelbarrierssuchastheextenttowhichwomen

engineerslackedclarityintheirroles,experiencedcontradictory

andconictingworkrequestsandrequirements,andfelt

overburdenedwithexcessiveworkresponsibilitieswithout

commensurateresources.

DO PERSONAL FACTORS PREDICT WOMENENGINEERS CAREER AND JOB SATISFACTION?

Weexaminedfactorsrelatedtowomenengineerssatisfaction

withtheircurrentjobandwiththeoverallcareerofengineering

ingeneral.Itisimportanttoexamineboth,becausewhilea

womanmightbedissatisedwithhercurrentjob,shemay

besatisedwiththeprofessionofengineering.Arrivingat

conclusionsaboutawomanengineersjobsatisfactionwould

therefore,onlycapturepartofthefactorsthatinuenceher

overallsatisfactionofbeinganengineerinanengineering

profession.

Therefore,theanswertotheabovequestionisyes,personal

factors,suchaslevelsofself-condenceinvariousareas,

domakeadifferenceinengineerssatisfactionwiththeir

careersandjobs.Currentwomenengineerswhopossessed

agreatdealofself-condenceintheirabilitiestonavigate

theirorganizationspoliticallandscapeandjugglemultipleliferolesweremostlikelytoexpresssatisfactionwiththeir

careersaswellastheirjobs.Further,engineerswhoexpected

positiveoutcomestoresultfromtheireffortstonavigate

theorganizationalclimateatworkwerealsomostlikelyto

expresssatisfactionwiththeirjobsandcareers.Interestingly,

themorewomenengineersexpectedpositiveresultsfrom

theireffortstobalancemultipleliferoles,thelesssatised

theywerewiththeirjobsandcareers.Itmaybethatexpecting

tobalancemultipleliferolesleadstolesssatisfactioninjust

oneofthoseroles.

DO BARRIERS AT WORK PREDICT WOMEN

ENGINEERS CAREER AND JOB SATISFACTION?

Womenwhoarecurrentlyworkinginengineeringhavetofaceandcontendwithavarietyofbarriersthatdampentheir

satisfactionwiththeirjobsandcareers.Oneofthebiggest

barriersthatcurrentengineersfacedatworkwasthelackof

clarityinthegoals,objectives,andresponsibilitiesintheir

workrolesandtheserole-relatedbarrierswererelatedtoa

diminishedsenseofsatisfactionwiththeirjobsandcareers.

Researchhasshownthatlackofclarityregardingjobrolesand

expectationscancreatetensionandstressforemployees

andnegativelyaffecttheirsatisfaction (Schaubroeck,Ganster,

Sime,&Ditman,1993).Currentengineerswhoreportedbeing

givenexcessiveworkloadwithoutcommensurateresources

alsoexperiencedlowlevelsofsatisfactionwiththeirjobs(butnottheircareers).Surprisingly,womenwhofacedconflict-

ingandoftenincompatibleworkrequestsfromtheir

supervisorsandco-workersdidnotreportlowerlevelsof

careersatisfaction,presumablybecausetheyeitherexpected

thisandknewhowtodealwithit,orbecausetheyviewedit

asaworkchallengethatextendedtheirlearning.

Inadditiontothework-rolerelatedbarriers,currentwomen

engineerswhoreportedworkinginanenvironmentthat

belittledandtreatedwomeninacondescending,patron-

izingmanner,andweresystematicallyunderminedby


38/64


theirsupervisorsandco-workersfeltleastsatisedwith

theirjobs.Wefoundcurrentengineerscareersatisfaction

wasmostdiminishedwhentheyexperiencedtheseuncivil

andunderminingbehaviorsfromtheirsupervisorsrather

thantheirco-workers.

Inessence,ofthedifferenttypesofworkplacebarriersthat

weexamined,thetwothatmostnegativelyinuenced

womenssatisfactionlevelswerework-roleuncertaintyand

aworkenvironmentthatconsistentlyunderminedthem.

DOES SUPPORT AT WORK PREDICT WOMEN

ENGINEERS CAREER AND JOB SATISFACTION?

Womenalsoreportedthattherewereseveralsupportive

elementsintheirworkplacethatinuencedhowsatis-

edtheyfeltwiththeirjobsandcareers.Forwomenwho

werecurrentlyworkinginengineering,fourdifferenttypes

ofsupportmadeadifferencetotheirsatisfactionatwork:

rst,themostsatisedwomenworkedforcompaniesthat

providedthemwithtangibletraininganddevelopmentop-

portunitiesbyassigningthemtoprojectsthathelpedthem

developandstrengthennewskills,givingthemchallenging

assignments,andinvestingintheirformaltrainingand

development.Second,womenengineerswhoperceivedthat

theirco-workersandsupervisorsweresupportiveofthem

feltmostsatisedwiththeirjobs.Third,womenengineers

whoworkedforcompaniesthatvaluedandrecognized

theircontributionsandcaredabouttheirwell-beingwere

mostsatisedwiththeirjobs.Finally,theresultsrevealed

thatwomenengineerswhoworkedincompaniesthat

regularlyexpectedtheiremployeestoworkmorethan50

hoursaweek,totakeworkhomeatnightand/orweekends,

andregularlyputtheirjobsbeforetheirfamiliesespecially

tobeconsideredfavorablybytopmanagementwereleast

satisedwiththeirjobs.

Womenengineerswhoreportedtobethemostsatisedwith

thecareersworkedincompaniesthatnotonlyvaluedand

recognizedtheircontributionsbutalsoinvestedsubstantially

intheirtrainingandprofessionaldevelopment.Thesewomen

alsoreceivedsubstantialsupportfromtheirfamilyand

friendswhichelevatedtheirlevelsofcareersatisfaction.

Insum,supportatworkmattersinshapingcurrentwomen

engineersfeelingsofsatisfactionwiththeirjobsandcareers.

Specifically,tangiblesupportintermsoftrainingand

developmentopportunities,supportiveco-workersandsuper-

visors,andcompaniesthatallowemployeestimetobalance

theirmultipleliferoles,allmakeforsatisedemployees.

CONCLUSION:

Currentwomenengineerscareersuccesswasshapedby

bothpositiveandnegativeexperiencesatwork.Positive

experienceswerecapturedbythetypeandamountof

supportreceivedatworkandnegativeexperienceswere

reectedintherole-relatedpressuresandundermining

behaviorsencounteredatwork.

Avarietyofpersonalandorganizationalfactorsliebehindcurrentwomenengineerscareersuccess.Forexample,current

womenengineerswhoexpressedhighlevelsofsatisfaction

withtheircareerswerelikelytohavereceivedample

opportunitiesfortraininganddevelopment,feltsupported

bytheirsupervisors,co-workers,andtheirorganizations

andperceivedavenuesforfurtheradvancementwithinthe

company.Thesewomenhadclear,identiablesetoftask

goals,responsibilities,andexpectationstoworkwith;they

alsofeltcondentintheirabilitiestonavigatethepolitical

landscapeintheircompaniesandmanagemultipleliferole

responsibilities.Furthermore,successfulwomenengineers

reportedworkingincompaniesthatsupportedtheirefforts


39/64

39CHAPTER SIX

tobalancetheirwork-liferesponsibilities.

Thereisadifferentsidetothispictureaswellonethat

highlightsthechallengesandnegativeexperiencesatwork

thathaveexercisedastronginuenceonshapingthese

womensperceptionsofsubjectivecareersuccess.Prominent

amongthesefactorswastheexperienceofincivilityatwork

thatwasreectedintheextenttowhichthesupervisors,

seniormanagers,andco-workersgenerallytreatedwomen

inacondescending,patronizing,ordiscourteousmanner

andspecicallyunderminedtheireffortsatbeingsuccessful

atwork.Thisndingisinlinewithotherrecentreportsthat

describehowwomeninSTEMcareersoftenfacebarriersto

theircareersuccessintheformofhostility,bias,andlackofrespect.(e.g.,Hewlettetal.,2008;AAUW,2010).

Comparison o Women EngineersCurrently Working in Engineering with

Women Engineers Who Let Less Than5 Years Ago

DID THE TWO GROUPS OF WOMEN

ENGINEERS DIFFER ON PERSONAL FACTORS?

Wefoundthatwomencurrentlyworkinginengineeringdid

notdifferfromwomenengineerswholeftlessthan5years

agoonanyofthepersonalfactorsrelatedtoself-condence

andtheirexpectationsfromperformingengineeringtasks,

balancingmultipleroles,ornavigatingpoliticalclimateat

work.Theyalsodidnotdifferintheirinterests.

DID PERSONAL FACTORS INFLUENCE JOB AND

CAREER SATISFACTION OF WOMEN WHO LEFT

ENGINEERING WITHIN THE PAST 5 YEARS?

Forwomenwhohadleftengineeringwithinthepastveyears,

thosewhowereself-condentinperformingengineering

tasksandexpectedpositiveresultstoemergefromthese

effortsfeltmostsatisedwiththeircareers.Eventhough

theywerenolongerworkinginengineering,womenwho

expectedpositiveoutcomesfromsuccessfullyperforming

theirengineeringtasksfeltagreatdealofsatisfactionwith

theirjobs.Forthisgroupofwomen,whatmatteredmost

fortheirjobsatisfactionwasalsotheextenttowhichthey

feltcondentaboutnavigatingthepoliticalclimateintheir

organizationsandmanagingmultiplelife-roles.Thegreater

theircondence,themoresatisedtheyfeltwiththeirjobs.

However,themorethesewomenexpectedfrombalancing

multipleliferolesandmanagingtheorganizationaldynamics,thelesssatisedtheyfeltwiththeirjobs.Itispossiblethat

whilewomenwerehighlyself-condentoftheirabilitiesto

successfullypursuethesevarioustasks,theydidntexpecta

lotofpositiveoutcomestoemergefromtheseeffortswhich

reectedintheirdampenedlevelsofjobandcareersatisfaction.


40/64


DID THE TWO GROUPS DIFFER IN THEIR

PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL

BARRIERS AND SUPPORTS?

Wefoundthatcurrentengineersweresignicantlymorelikely

thanwomenwholeftengineeringtoperceiveopportunities

fortraininganddevelopmentthatwouldhelpthemadvance

tothenextlevel.Interestingly,thecurrentengineersreported

fewerwork-lifebenetsavailabletothem,butweresignicantly

morelikelytohaveusedthosebenets.Currentengineers

weresignicantlymorelikelytoreportbothsupervisorand

co-workersupport,andthattheclimatewassupportiveof

theirneedtobalanceworkandnon-workroles.Thetwo

groupsdidnotdifferinhavingamentor;however,only

aboutaquarterofeachgroupreportedhavingamentor.We

foundthatwomenwholeftengineeringreportedexperiencing

moreunderminingbehaviorsfromtheirsupervisors,more

incivilityintheirworkplaces(beingtalkedover,patronized,

ortalkedaboutbehindtheirbacks),andindicatedthat

theorganizationaltimedemands,toworklonghours,onweekendsandevenings,wereexcessive.

JOB SATISFACTION OF WOMEN WHO LEFT


Yes,theydid.Ascomparedtotheircolleagueswhoare

currentlyworkinginengineering,womenwholeftengineering

withinthepastveyearsreportedaverysimilarsetofwork

androlehindrancesthatdiminishedtheirlevelsofjob

andcareersatisfaction.Thisgroupofwomenwhoexperi-

encedunderminingbehaviorsfromtheirsupervisorswere

leastsatisedwiththeircareers.Lackofclarityinonesjob

rolesandexpectationscoupledwithexcessiveworkload

(andfewresources)alsomadethemfeeldissatisedwiththeirjobsandcareers.

DID SUPPORT AT WORK PREDICT CAREER AND

JOB SATISFACTION OF WOMEN WHO LEFT


Yes,itdid.Ascomparedtotheircolleagueswhoarecurrently

workinginengineering,womenwholeftengineeringin

thelastveyearsreportedsimilarsupportiveelements

thatmadethemfeelsatisedwiththeirjobs.Mostnotably,

womenwhoworkedforcompaniesthatvaluedtheircon-

tributionsandreceivedsubstantialtraininganddevelop-mentopportunitiesweremostsatisedwiththeirjobs.


41/64

41

7:WOMEN CURRENTLY

WORKING INENGINEERING:HOW ARE THEY

MANAGINGTHEIRMULTIPLELIFE ROLES?


42/64


Workandfamilyrolesareintimatelyandinextricably

connectedinmostpeopleslives.Whathappensinones

jobandcareeraffectsonespersonalandfamilylife.For

example,agood(orabad)dayatworkmayaffectones

moodwheninteractingwithfamilyandfriendsafterwork.

Thethingsthathappeninonespersonallifethefriend-shipsandfamilyresponsibilitiesalsoaffectonesjobor

career.Forexample,aspouses(orapartners)careermay

preventonefromacceptingarelocationoffer.Giventhe

multiple,competing,andoftensimultaneousdemandsand

pressuresthatemployeesface,frictionbetweentheirwork-

familyrolesisinevitable.Indeed,somereportsestimatethat

95%ofAmericanworkersexperiencework-familyconict

(Williams&Boushey,2010).

Work-familyconictposesasignicantsourceofstress

inthelivesofmanyemployeesandhasbeenknownto

affectavarietyofimportantpersonalandorganizational

outcomessuchasemployeewell-being,physicalhealth,

loyalty,performance,jobsatisfaction,absenteeism,turnover

intentions,andwithdrawalfromtheorganizationandthe

profession.Thereisacompellingneedtounderstandwork-

familyconictamongengineersbecausetheprofession

isalreadyfacingashortageoftalentedengineers(2010).

Indeed,asurveyofmaleandfemalescientistsrevealedthat

womenwhoexperiencedhighlevelsofwork-familyconict

werelesslikelytoberetainedbytheiremployerscomparedto

theirmalecolleagues(NationalScienceBoard,S&EIndicators,

2004).However,despitedecadesofresearchonwork-family

conictamongdifferentprofessionalgroupsofemployees,thereisinadequateunderstandingofdynamicsofwork-family

conictamongengineers.Itisthereforeimperativetotake

stepstowardllinganimportantgapinourunderstanding.

Althoughbeingengagedinmultipleroleshaswell-

documentedsalutaryeffectsonpeopleslivesintermsof

improvedwellbeing,greatercreativity,andsocialsupport,in

thischapter,wedescribethewomenengineersexperienceof

work-familyconict,thedifferentpersonalandorganizational

factorsthatprovokeandalleviateit.Indeed,thisisthe

rststudyofitskindtoexclusivelyfocusonengineersasa

distinctclassofprofessionalemployeesandnotinthesamecategoryasscientistsandengineers.

Inthisstudy,weadoptedabroaddenitionofnon-work

rolestoincludeanykindofcare-givingresponsibilities,

involvementinpersonalrelationships,orengagementin

othernon-workactivities.Wedenedwork-homeconict

astheextenttowhichworkandhomeresponsibilities

interferewithoneanother,i.e.,theextenttowhichemployees

experiencemutuallyincompatibledemandsandpressures

fromoneswork(orhome)rolesuchthatitinterfereswith

effectiveparticipationinthehome(orwork)role.Workcan

interferewiththefulllmentofoneshome-relatedobligations

(work-to-familyconict/interference)orviceversa,family/

homeresponsibilitiescaninterferewiththefulllment

ofworktasks(family-to-workconict/interference).Inadditiontolookingatbothdirectionsofwork-family

conictmentionedabove,thisstudyalsoexaminedattwo

formsofwork-familyconict.Work-familyconictcan

beinstigatedwhenexcessivetimedemandsinoneroledo

notallowonetofullltheresponsibilitiesassociatedwith

theotherrole,(time-basedconict)orwhenthestrainand

pressuresassociatedwithaparticularrolemakeitdifcult

fortheindividualstoparticipateintheotherrole(strain-

basedconict).Inthisstudy,weaggregatedtheresponsesto

timeandstrain-baseddemandsandlookedatthecombined

effectsofbothformsofconict.

DO PERSONAL FACTORS PREDICT WOMEN

ENGINEERS WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT?

Yes,theydoandsomefactorsmorethantheothers.

Predictably,womenwithchildcareresponsibilities

experiencedgreaterinterferencebetweentheirworkand

non-workrolesthanthosewithoutsuchresponsibilities;for

thisgroup,theextenttowhichtheirhomelifeinterferedwith

theirworkrolewasgreaterthantheotherwayaround.Only

2%ofoursamplereportedprovidingcarefordependents

otherthantheirchildren.Therewerenodifferencesinwork-

familyconictbyrace.Comparedtobaby-boomersor

GenerationX-ers,millennialwomenreportedlowestlevelso

interferenceoriginatingfromtheirnon-workresponsibilities

thatadverselyaffectedtheirparticipationintheworkrole.


43/64

43CHAPTER SEVEN

Giventhatwomenareengagedinmultipleliferoles,the

questionthatarisesishowcondentaretheyinmanaging

thesemultiplerolesandhowtheirexpectationsofmanaging

theserolesaffecttheirexperienceofwork-familyconict.We

examinedtheextenttowhichwomensself-condencein

performingengineeringtasks,managingmultipleroles,andnavigatingtheorganizationaldynamicsmadeadiffer-

enceintheirexperienceofwork-familyconict.Thegreater

theirself-condenceinmanagingmultipleroles,theless

frictiontheyexperiencedbetweentheirworkandnon-work

roles.Unexpectedly,womenwithhighlevelsofcondence

inperformingengineeringtasksandnavigatingpolitical

landscapereportedhighlevelsofworkinterferingwiththeir

familyrole.Onepossibleexplanationforthiscounterintuitive

ndingcouldbethathighlevelsofself-condenceinaccom-

plishingdifferenttasksmayservetoattractmoreworktheir

waywhichwouldpreventthemfromfullyparticipatingin

theirfamilyrole.Indeed,ourresultsonwork-roleoverloadandself-condencesupportthislineofreasoning.

Surprisingly,womenwhoexpectedpositiveoutcomesfrom

managingmultiplerolesdidnotseeacommensuratedecrease

inlevelsofwork-familyconict.Instead,themorethat

theyexpectedfrombalancingtheirmultipleroles,themore

work-familyconicttheyexperienced.Perhaps,theanticipated

benetsofmanagingmultiplerolesarenotenoughtoout-

weightherealityofjugglingmultiple,competingdemands.

However,theperceivedbenetsofsuccessfullynavigating

theorganizationallandscapewereassociatedwithlower

levelsofworkinterferencewithfamily.

Overall,self-condenceinmanagingmultipleroles

emergedasoneofthemostsalientfactorsthatexplained

theexperienceofwork-familyconictamongthisgroupof

womenengineers.Engineerswiththehighestlevelsof

self-condenceinmanagingmultipleroleswerelikelyto

experiencelowestlevelsofwork-familyconict.Interest-

ingly,theseself-condencebeliefswerenotalwaysaligned

withtheanticipatedbenetsfromperformingthisbalanc-

ingact;womenwhoanticipatedpositiveoutcomestoresult

frombalancingtheirmultiplerolesdidnotexperience

lowerlevelsofwork-familyconict.

DO BARRIERS AT WORK EXACERBATE WOMEN

ENGINEERS WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT?

Therearecertainbarriersthatwomenengineersexperience

atworkthatareassociatedwithheightenedlevelsofwork-

familyconict.Prominentamongthesebarriersiswomens

experienceofexcessiveworkloadwithoutcommensurate

resources.Suchroleoverloadheightenedthefriction

betweenengineersworkandnon-workroles.Inaddition,

experiencingconictingandsometimesincompatiblework

demandsalsocontributedtothefrictionbetweenworkand

non-workroles.Researchhasshownthatrolepressuresthat

involveextensivetimecommitmentsorproduceexcessive

strainexacerbatethedegreeofwork-familyconict.We

alsofoundthatwomenengineerswhoreportedworkingin

environmentswherewomenweretreatedinapatronizing,

condescending,andrudemannerbythesupervisors,senior

managers,andothercolleaguesindicatedthattheirworkrolepreventedthemfromeffectivelyfulllingtheirnon-work

commitments,therebyexacerbatingtheexperienceofwork-

familyconict.

Overall,rolerelatedstressesandpressuresemergedasone

ofthebiggestinuencesonwomenengineersexperienceof

work-familyconict.Inaddition,encounteringanuncivil

workenvironmentcontributedtoheightenedlevelsofstress

betweenworkandnon-workrolesaswell.


44/64


DOES SUPPORT AT WORK REDUCE THE

OCCURRENCE OF WOMEN ENGINEERS

WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT?

Theanswerisitdepends.Certainsupportiveaspectsof

onesworkenvironmentenablewomenengineerstobetter

fullltheirworkandnon-workroleresponsibilitiesthereby

reducingtheoccurrenceofwork-familyconict,whereas,there

werecertainsupportstructuresthatproducedjusttheopposite,

unintendedeffect.Whathelpstoreducetheoccurrenceof

work-to-familyconict?Becauseourpurposewastounder-

standwhatreduceswork-familyconict,weconsidereda

varietyofwork-familyinitiativesattheorganizationallevel

aswellasindividualsupportmechanismsthatcouldreduce

thisimportantstressorinthelivesoftheengineers.

Work-familyinitiativeshavebeentraditionallydenedas

deliberateorganizationalchangesinpolicies,practices,or

thetargetculturetoreduceworkfamilyconictand/or

supportemployeeslivesoutsideofwork (Kellyetal.,2008).

Weexaminedwhetherformalwork-lifepolicies(suchas

part-timework,job-sharing,paidandunpaidleavesof

absence,andexibleworkarrangements)providedto

employeeshelpstoreducework-familyconict.Research

hasshownthatitisnotthemereavailabilityofwork-family

initiatives,buttheiractualusethatmakesadifferenceinthe

occurrenceofwork-familyconict.Hence,wealsoexamined

theextenttowhichengineersuseddifferentwork-lifepoli-

ciesaffectedtheirexperienceofwork-familyconict.We

alsotappedintoengineersperceptionsofhowsupportivetheirorganizationalculturewastowardtheirneedfor

work-familybalance.Specically,weexaminedtheextentto

whichsupervisorsandmanagersareaccommodatingand

responsivetoemployeesnon-workresponsibilitiesandthe

extenttowhichtheorganizationimposestimedemandsand

constraintsthatmakefulllmentofnon-workobligations

difcult.Finally,wealsoassessedthewhethertheextentto

whichtheorganizationvaluedandrecognizedtheengi-

neerscontributionstothecompanyandcaredabouttheir

well-being,loweredtheoccurrenceofwork-familyconict.

Attheindividuallevel,weassessedwhetherhavingamen-

torandreceivingsupportfromsupervisors,colleagues,andfriendsandfamilycanoffsettheoccurrenceofconict.

Ourresultsrevealedthreekeysupportsthatreducedthe

occurrenceofoneformofwork-familyconictspecically,

theextenttowhichworkinterferedwithfamilylife.First,

theextenttowhichtheorganizationvaluedandrecognized

theengineerscontributionstothecompanyandcaredabout

theirwell-beingdidindeedlowertheextenttowhichtheir

worktasksinterferedwiththeirinvolvementinnon-work

roles.Second,womenengineerswhoreportedworkingfor

organizationsthatwerecharacterizedbyfamilysupportive

workculturestendedtoexperiencelessfrictionbetween

theirworkresponsibilitiesandfamilycommitments.

Specically,themoreresponsiveandaccommodatingthe

managersweretoengineersnon-workconcerns,thelessconicttheyexperienced.Further,thelesstheorganization

imposedexcessivetimedemands,especiallydemandsthat

requiredface-timeandweekendandeveningwork,theless

conictthesewomenexperiencedinfulllingtheirnon-

workresponsibilities.Neitherhavingamentornorhaving

supportivecolleagues,supervisor,friendsandfamily,made

anydifferencetothedegreetowhichworkroleinterfered

withthenon-workrole.

Adifferentsetofndingsemergedwhenweexamined

thequestionwhatreducestheextenttowhichfamily

responsibilitiesinterferewithworkparticipation?Whereas

noneoftheindividualsourcesofsupportmadeadifference

towork-to-familyconict,wefoundthatwomenwhocould

relyonandelicitsupportfromfamilyandfriendswereleast

likelytoreportthattheirnon-workresponsibilitiesinterfered

withtheirinvolvementatwork.However,thatwastheonly

thingthatreducedfamily-to-workinterference.Contraryto

expectations,noneofthework-familyinitiativeswhether

intheformofavailabilityand/oruseofwork-lifepolicies

orthesupportivenessoforganizationalculturereduced

theextenttowhichnon-workcommitmentsinterferedwith

fulllmentofworkresponsibilities.Infact,theactualuse

ofwork-lifebenetpoliciessubstantiallyincreasedtheleveloffamily-to-workconict.Therehavebeensimilarresults

reportedamongothergroupsofprofessionalemployees

(cf.,Kell

women in engineering 2011

Documents